BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 599|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 599
Author: Costa (D)
Amended: 4/27/99
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 4/13/99
AYES: Vasconcellos, Burton, Johnston, McPherson, Polanco,
Rainey
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 13-0, 5/17/99
AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Escutia, Johnson,
Karnette, Kelley, Leslie, McPherson, Mountjoy, Perata,
Vasconcellos
SUBJECT : Youth Authority: "sliding scale" fees
SOURCE : Chief Probation Officers of California
DIGEST : The purpose of this bill is to make the following
two changes to the "sliding scale" applicable to Youth
Authority commitments: 1) specify the commitment offense
to be the offense requiring the longest period of
commitment prior to parole consideration, as specified; and
2) to prohibit the Youth Authority from changing the
category offense upon which a ward's commitment is based.
ANALYSIS : Under current law, effective January 1, 1997,
counties must pay the state $150 (instead of the former
$25) for each minor committed to the Department of the
Youth Authority. (Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC)
section 912) In addition, counties must contribute a
CONTINUED
SB 599
Page
2
"sliding scale" contribution for Youth Authority
commitments based upon the category of the offender; the
sliding scale ranges from 50 percent of the per capita
institutional cost of the Youth Authority for category 5
offenses (category 1 being the most serious out of 7
categories), 75 percent for category 6 offenses, and 100
percent for category 7 offenses. (WIC section 912.5)
Under current law, the offense upon which a commitment is
based - the basis for assessing the sliding scale fee -
means any offense that has been sustained by the juvenile
court and is included in the determination of the maximum
term of imprisonment by the juvenile court. (WIC section
912.5(b))
This bill would require the Department of the Youth
Authority to present a claim to the county with the
following notice:
NOTICE : This claim does not include any "sliding scale"
fees due pursuant to Section 912.5 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code if the minor to whom this claim applies
has not been classified as of the date of this claim. Once
the minor has been classified, the county may be billed
retroactively for any "sliding scale" fees that may be due
commencing as of the date the department received custody
of the minor.
This bill instead would define "offense" to mean "the
offense requiring the longest period of commitment prior to
parole consideration," as specified.
This bill provides that when assigning a category to a ward
pursuant to Section 4951 to 4957 inclusive of Title 15 of
the California Code of Regulations, the Youthful Offender
Parole Board must consider any information or
recommendations received from a county or court concerning
that assignment and shall inform the county or court in
writing of the board's reason or reasons if the ward is
assigned a category contrary to the recommendations
received from the court or the county.
Sliding Scale; History and Effect
SB 599
Page
3
In 1996, the Legislature enacted legislation generally
increasing the fees that counties pay to the state for
commitment of juvenile offenders to CYA. (SB 681(Hurtt)
Chapter 6, Statutes of 1996 These new fees went into
effect in January of 1997. Before SB 681, counties paid
the state $25 -- an amount set in 1961-- each month for
each offender sent to CYA. SB 681 increased this fee to
$150 per offender per month, and also enacted a "sliding
fee scale" for offenders sent by counties to CYA. As
explained by the Legislative Analyst's office:
When a ward is sent to the Youth Authority, the
Youthful Offender Parole Board assigns the ward
a category number -- from 1 to 7 -- based on the
seriousness of the commitment offense.
Generally, wards in categories 1 through 4 are
considered the most serious offenders, while
categories 5 through 7 are less serious. Under
this legislation, counties pay 100 percent of
the costs of wards in category 7 (the least
serious offense category), 75 percent of the
costs for wards in category 6, and 50 percent of
the costs for wards in category 5. Counties pay
the proposed $150 per month fee for all other
commitments.
The momentum behind sliding scale began in 1994, when the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) reviewed CYA placements
and discovered that 24 counties at that time sent primarily
serious offenders to CYA. In contrast, LAO found that "20
counties' total commitments to the Youth Authority consist
(at that time) of 50 percent or more of less serious
offenders." The legislation imposing a sliding scale fee
for CYA commitments was intended to address this situation.
In its analysis of the 1999-00 budget, the Legislative
Analyst's Office concludes that the sliding scale approach
is achieving its intended objectives:
The sliding scale legislation was intended to
achieve two primary objectives: (1) reduce
the over-reliance by counties on the Youth
Authority for less serious juvenile offenders
and (2) encourage counties to create a fuller
SB 599
Page
4
spectrum of locally available programming to
meet the needs of juvenile offenders.
Available data demonstrate that the first
objective has been met. Counties are being
significantly more judicious in their use of
the Youth Authority as a placement option for
wards of the juvenile court. Although it is
premature to declare the second objective a
success as well, it is clear that many
counties are responding to the change by
creating new local program options.
On the whole, we believe that these trends
are positive, as local programming is likely
to be more effective and less expensive than
a Youth Authority commitment for less serious
offenders. Moreover, because their offense
histories do not involve serious violent
crimes, these wards are not likely to pose a
serious threat to public safety if kept
within the community.
Modifying Sliding Scale to Account for County Cost Sharing
In its 1999-00 budget analysis, the Legislative Analyst
suggests the Legislature consider revising the current
length of stay decision making process to account for the
fact that counties now are obligated to pay for a
significant portion of a ward's state incarceration costs:
Under current law, once a young offender is
accepted by the Youth Authority as a new
admission, he becomes a ward of the
department, and all decisions regarding
length of stay, parole, and parole revocation
are within the sole jurisdiction of the YOPB
. . . .
This method of determining length of stay may
be appropriate for wards where the state is
bearing almost all of the costs. However, it
is less appropriate for wards in categories V
through VII where counties are paying 50
percent or more of the cost to house the
SB 599
Page
5
ward. This issue takes on particular
importance given the large disparities that
apparently exist between what the counties
and the YOPB view as appropriate periods of
secure confinement for these less serious
offenders. For example, as discussed in our
analysis of the YOPB, parole consideration
dates (PCDs) for less serious offenders in
the Youth Authority ranged from 19 months for
Category V to 13 months for Category VII. By
contrast, most counties are implementing
programs for these offenders that are
generally six to nine months in duration.
This bill would provide that, for purposes of assessing the
sliding scale fee, the offense upon which a commitment is
based would be the offense requiring the longest period of
commitment prior to parole consideration. The sponsor
suggests this definition would prevent a technical parole
violation -- a Level VII category -- from skewing the
offense classification of ward. However, the YOPB
regulations currently base commitment categories on the
most serious offense in the ward's entire record. Thus,
it appears that the proposed language may be unnecessary.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02
Fund
Sliding scale fee Unknown increased costs, potentially
General
program $250, annually to YOPB
Minor, absorbable, increased costs General
To CYA
Potential minor increased, nonreimburs- Local
able costs to probation departments
Courts Potential minor increased costs
Special*
*Trial Court Trust Fund
SB 599
Page
6
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/19/99)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author states the bill is
sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California and
would provide that an offender's classification for
purposes of charging counties shall be the most serious and
sustained offense in an offender's history. This provision
of SB 599 simply clarifies that wards with violent or
serious criminal background shall not, for charging
counties, be considered low risk.
The bill also provides a greater role for the Chief
Probation Officers/County in ensuring that the Youthful
Offenders Parole Board/California Youth Authority does not
change the classification of (a) minor's crime and then
bill the county without any input from local officials.
In addition, the sponsor submits that some counties have
been retroactively billed for changes in a ward's category
classification. Under the current practice, prior to a
ward's assessment and category assignment, counties are
charged only the base $150 monthly fee. Once a ward is
given an offense category, if their category requires a
county contribution the county is charged that sliding
scale fee retroactively for the period preceeding the
ward's assessment. It appears there may be some confusion
that this billing constitutes a change in a ward's category
offense, when in fact it covers the ward's initial,
pre-assessment incarceration period during which no sliding
scale fee had been billed.
RJG:jk 5/19/99 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****